from the alert-the-UN dept

Despite a recent UN report that condemns the idea of kicking people off the internet as a civil rights violation, a court in Finland has agreed with a request by the record labels to kick three accused files sharers off the internet with no notice at all. This isn't three strikes. It's basically one-strike. Record labels accuse... court tells ISP to kick them off. I'm so sure that'll make people start buying music again.

Re:

If it's about right and wrong, how about the right/wrong of corporate interests absconding with our (US), and much of the world's governments through bribery, obfuscation and intimidation? That seems kinda wrong to me. Especially since it's to support a dead business model and with the collateral damage of free expression.

Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re:

'This' is a good reason to live in the US? How sad and scantimonius are you? I live in Finland, and while I don't agree with everything that goes on here, it is certainly no reason to move to the US, All my healtcare comes at a reasonable price, my annual leave is 12 weeks, I can walk the streets of any city, day or night, without fear and I live in a Country were all are entitled to the best education in the world. By the way, we also have the freedom to express our concerns at the ballot box, it is not, despite what you seem to think, only an American option!

Re:

The point you love to miss is that these types of actions are fail for many reasons:

* They will not drive people back to purchasing music.
* They will not make the business of selling plastic discs obscenely profitable again.
* They will not fix the the tarnished reputation of the **AA's, which are in dire need of repair.
* They squander the **AA's cash pool in a missguided attempt to turn time back to when they did nothing but let the millions roll in, which in turn limits the **AA's ability to adapt to disruptive technologies/trends.
* They tie down courts that could be used to dispense actual justice.
* And they waste alot of tax payer money.

There is no 'win' in this strategy, and Mike Points that out consistantly and clearly in these posts. If there is no business sense in these actions, then why spend the money to litigate? Morality? Ethics? Ignorance?

The wise direction for a Business facing disruption by competition/technology/Shifting_Social_landscapes is to learn AND adapt. Whinning, pouting, and treating your actual customers like criminals is a fasttrack to the end of your business.

Re:

I actually think that it is a matter of what is right, but I think we may disagree on what is right.

I don't think that kicking someone off of the internet is right. You can't kill anyone with an internet.

I also don't think that a well funded special interest group lobbying to change laws to favor them and then using the laws to punish citizens is right.

I do understand that you accept copyright as right, and you disagree, and that's really fine. But when a business begins to pursue judgments against people, not to make money, but out of some subjective notion of right and wrong, I think that's far more dangerous than piracy.

Re:

Well those people are not taking action because they don't care about sales, their all raison d'Ítre is because of sales, the bottom line or else they wouldn't be doing any of this.

Doubt?

It is an actual crime to make false claims on works in the public domain and yet you don't see any TV, club, entity or individual being prosecuted for it, where is that crap about "it's just a matter of what is right"?

Where was the prosecutors when Universal falsely claimed copyright on King Kong and sued Nintendo?

Re:

Re: Re:

The point is any single case isn't decided upon on the basis of what it, and it alone, can take to the bottom line. Mike Masnick seems to think that the only reason to take legal action would be if suddenly those users would become buyers. That is just not logical.

Sometimes, it is question of what is right, just, and legal, and not at all a question of direct bottom line results from any single action. Maybe over thousands of legal actions, over time, that the mentality of file traders as a whole, not the individuals involved will change. That might go to the bottom line, but no single action leads to direct bottom line results. Doing what is right will perhaps lead to a better bottom line, and that may be enough.

Re: Re: Re:

What's right...you're serious about this? How dense are you people defending this? It's as though you have no ability to read, learn from history or think in any way. If you don't understand what is wrong with the laws in the first place, then you never will. This kind of thinking is why America is a dying country. So went Rome, so went Egypt, so went Persia...entitlement is the stranglehold of any civilization. It's too bad you can't see just how much you're ruining things for your children. Within 50 years, you will regret every word you've written unless you're the one who benefits. More than likely though you'll be dead because you couldn't afford the medication locked up in patent protection and the massive debt from the lawsuits that are "good and right" will ensure your family is left nothing. I can't say we'll be worse off when you leeches are gone.

Re: Re: Re:

Quote:

The point is any single case isn't decided upon on the basis of what it, and it alone, can take to the bottom line. Mike Masnick seems to think that the only reason to take legal action would be if suddenly those users would become buyers. That is just not logical.

And you keep acting like companies are doing this to defend justice, when they have no interest in doing so, that is more illogical but you still defend that unsustainable position. Sometimes is just about the bottom line and that is it, are you saying those companies don't care about the bottom line, they are there just to uphold justice and fairness and all that is good? Because when it is about that and only that people don't even pay attention to the law only when economic interests are involved that things get serious. For those companies nobody here is under any illusion that this has anything to do with right, just and legal, everybody knows is about the bottom line and trying to improve it.

Quote:

Sometimes, it is question of what is right, just, and legal, and not at all a question of direct bottom line results from any single action.

And as others already pointed out to you, this is clearly not one of those cases.

Quote:

Maybe over thousands of legal actions, over time, that the mentality of file traders as a whole, not the individuals involved will change.

Well if by file traders you mean caring, sharing people we are pissed, but somehow I doubt that is the answer you are looking for.

Speaking for myself I'm so pissed that I'm not buying, supporting or consuming that crap anymore, I found legal alternatives that if not on the same level (technically or artistically) are still free as in freedom to use, modify and distribute, to all content owners that believe they are entitled to anything a say "F. You!".

More I do transmit movies and music to cellphones(my wife and some friends) and if I ever get caught and am brought to "justice" the first thing I will file is a "copyright misuse" claim(Lasercomb America, Inc. v. Reynolds), if that doesn't work I will file the F.U. Form and sent it to the judge and plaintiffs.

Re:

"Considering that these connections were specifically responsible for a large amount of file sharing, it seems a pretty reasonable action."

Ah, blindly accepting the word of record labels, who have been shown to have identified the wrong people many times with their flimsy "evidence". I'm not surprised you want corporate desires attended to before any form of real justice in a court of law. I only wish the "pirates" had your IP address and the addresses of those like you so that you could experience your idea of "justice" based on nothing more than an accusation...

"Too bad you don't have another source besides torrent freak, it seems a very one sided report."

Feel free to provide what you consider to be an "unbiased" source. Sadly, there seem to be few other sources outside of Finland reporting this.

Geez, Mike, you've already convinced me that file-sharing is suspect.

Quit trying to back me into supporting the copyright tyrants! I'm beginning to wonder if /you/ aren't an agent /for/ the MPAA!

Look, it's EASY to spot file sharing on any scale by simply analyzing data packets. When that's /egregious/ (pick your own point), it's not only EASY to stop but almost required so long as copyright exists -- and I'm for that under 1960's terms -- sothink /this/ reasonable and that most people would find it so and agree with the decision.

Yet, as already snarked above, all you've got in response is a little ankle-biter yip when you're blatantly wrong on how events will turn out, some sort of Pollyanna outlook that doesn't serve we reasonable people well.

But what's the point? You have faster sponsored FTP connections, and you don't need to leave that pesky resource hogging torrent process running. Torrents are completely useless for *nix. It's a weak defense, stick with the gamers please.

Ignoring your trivialization of how easy it is to determine whether or not a specific file is or is not infringing it would be easy to catch all criminals if we listened to everyone's phone calls and read all of their emails and text messages, so your assumption that the kind of invasion of privacy you are suggesting would be "reasonable" seems far from it for what amounts to a civil matter best resolved in small claims court.

Just want to say Elisa has not disconnected anyone yet. They might go to a higher court, whatever that process is. I'm not sure. In any case, if anyone is disconnected they can open a new account with another provider. Basically, just a waste of time and tax payer's money. Not to mention no one provided evidence of any wrongdoing.

The content maffia calls the judge. The judge orders the ISP to disconnect. No trial. No contest of evidence. Nothing. Just the way they like it in North Korea.

And judging by the RIAA lap dog's reaction here (AC). Just the way he likes it too.

worldaudit.org lists Finland at the top of virtually every category: democracy, lack of corruption, free press, etc. So one of the most highly esteemed countries in the world kicks egregious infringers off the net, what does that say? Maybe it isn't the evil MPAA/RIAA world shadow government pulling strings and manipulating entire nations. Maybe well-regarded nations also have come to their own conclusion that intellectual property is still property and deserves protection from predation. More and more countries are taking even more harsh measures than those contemplated in the US. To ascribe these initiatives to the RIAA/MPAA either themselves or through the US government is pure naivety.

Re:

Quote:

(c) Fraudulent Copyright Notice. ó Any person who, with fraudulent intent, places on any article a notice of copyright or words of the same purport that such person knows to be false, or who, with fraudulent intent, publicly distributes or imports for public distribution any article bearing such notice or words that such person knows to be false, shall be fined not more than $2,500.

Re: Re:

The paragraph's name is "ß 506. Criminal offenses"

That have two problems:

1. $2500 dollars is laughable for any company, so they just will keep doing it until the end of times, why can't people put percent of earnings to make equitable laws that will have the same effect if you are poor or rich? We all learn math in schools early on and the first thing you learn is fractions, even cooks know how to use those, but congress apparently was never in school.

2. Is criminal, meaning no person can start a proceeding only the state on behalf of people, which is to say never, apparently since no one case ever was filled against anyone anywhere, but the law is there.

Perhaps not every copyright claim that is not sustained was not made with fraudulent intent.

"Under common law, three elements are required to prove fraud: a material false statement made with an intent to deceive (scienter), a victimís reliance on the statement and damages."

While fraud and fraudulent intent are not interchangeable as legal terms, the core act seems to be a knowingly false statement calculated to deceive. It's unlikely that any General Counsel would ever put his company in such a position. So again, having a copyright claim thrown out is not in and of itself evidence of fraud or fraudulent intent.

Re:

Because they said in another trial that King Kong was in the public domain.

If that doesn't prove knowledge and intent to defraud I don't know what does.

Also, many people know they were they are getting things, if it is from the public domain you know where it came from, but never the less they still put a copyright noticed on everything is that not fraud?

Are broadcasters not aware of their rights and limitations?
They have legal teams just for that and you are trying to say they didn't know things weren't copyrightable?

These are not individuals with little to no money, we are talking big business with entire legal teams whith the sole purpose of "clearing" things and they still claim copyright on everything even if they don't own it, knowingly, are you saying those legal teams are not aware of what is in the public domain or not?

If there were uncertainties would it not be prudent to not put any copyright notice since it is a "CRIME"?

Re: Re:

Makes you wonder how an individual is supposed to know what is infringing if a giant corporation can't determine if King Kong is public domain or not. A point made here many times that seems to be forgotten everytime this topic comes up.